Pliteq, Inc. v. Wilrep Ltd.

Pliteq, Inc. v. Wilrep Ltd.

Pliteq failed to meet the Sierra Club test because it did not present objective evidence of a real risk that Wilrep would wilfully, negligently or unwittingly misuse disclosed information beyond the protection of the implied undertaking; CEO designations were unjustified and the motion is dismissed with costs for improper allegations.

Citation
2019 FC 158
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Pliteq, Inc.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Wilrep Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation (trademark, Passing Off, Copyright; Commercial Dispute) / Motion for Protective Order (hearing on CEO Designation)
Outcome
Motion dismissed; request for 'Highly Confidential - Counsel's Eyes Only' protective order denied.
Legal Topics
Protective Order, Counsel's Eyes Only, Implied Undertaking Rule, Confidentiality Order Test (sierra Club), Costs for Improper Allegations
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Confidentiality Evidence Commercial Law Protective Order Counsel's Eyes Only Implied Undertaking Rule +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pliteq, Inc.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

Wilrep Ltd.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation (trademark, Passing Off, Copyright; Commercial Dispute) / Motion for Protective Order (hearing on CEO Designation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 'Highly Confidential - Counsel's Eyes Only' designation is justified
  2. 2 Whether Pliteq established a serious risk to an important commercial interest such that alternative measures are inadequate
  3. 3 Whether the implied undertaking rule suffices to protect disclosed information

Ratio Decidendi

Pliteq failed to meet the Sierra Club test because it did not present objective evidence of a real risk that Wilrep would wilfully, negligently or unwittingly misuse disclosed information beyond the protection of the implied undertaking; CEO designations were unjustified and the motion is dismissed with costs for improper allegations.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; request for 'Highly Confidential - Counsel's Eyes Only' protective order denied.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's motion dismissed
  • Costs fixed in the amount of CAD 4000 payable to the Defendant forthwith and in any event of the cause